9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Officers found that the suppliers of the Grey fabrics were not in existence. We find that the Dy Commissioner, C&CE Div IV, Surat by his letter dtd 4.12.2008 in response to query under RTI application had forwarded to copy of the CE Registration Certificate of the suppliers. Thus, it is clearly evident that the suppliers were in existence during the material period. - Decision in the case of M/s Prayagraj Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd (2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) followed - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/1286,1287/2011 - ORDER No. A/11012-11013 / 2015 - Dated:- 30-6-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod May 2003 October 2004 by show cause notice dtd 2.4.2008 is barred by limitation. He submits there is no material available of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty by the appellant. He particularly drew the attention of the Bench the relevant portion of the statement of Shyam Sunder Bhanawat dtd 2.4.2008. He also drew the attention of the Bench to the letter dtd 4.12.2008 of the Dy Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Division IV, Surat I in reply to the query under RTI Act 2005 stating that the suppliers were in existence during the material period. He strongly relied upon the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Prayagraj Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd vs Union of India [2013(290)ELT.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that if the original document is issued even by practising fraud, a holder in due course for valuable consideration unless shown to be a party to a fraud, cannot be proceeded with by taking aid of a larger period of limitation as indicated in Section 11A(1) of the Act. It is now settled law that Section 11A(1) is applicable when there is positive evasion of duty and mere failure to pay duty does not render larger period applicable. In the case before us, it is not the case of the Revenue that the transferees were party to any fraud and therefore, the Revenue cannot rely upon a larger period of limitation. Our aforesaid view finds support from the following decisions of the Supreme Court : (i) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments, report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
